Repost from September 22,2006
Time to get started Part 3 the Talk: "Asset Allocation"
September 22, 2006
Hello,
This is when most investment professionals give you the talk; you know the talk about how you should be diversified into different asset classes. I think this is the most over used bunch of BS the investment community throws at investors and I have a bit of a different take on asset allocation.
First and foremost it is important to recognize that for new investors with small amounts of money asset allocation becomes a meaningless gesture, as a new investor you need to concentrate on building your asset base so you have something too diversify with. Secondly if you were an investor in the early 2000 during the market melt down you noticed that everything you owned no matter what it was or where it was invested sold off and if there is one thing we learned from the bubble bursting in 2000 was that in a serious bear market asset allocation does not work. I will repeat that in a serious bear market asset allocation does not work.
For many investors some asset classes are just not viable or not suitable or simply conflict with the investor’s investment style or risk tolerance. There is also the practical problem that some asset classes remain in very long periods of Bear markets and from time to time arise for very short Bull runs leaving investors buying at the highs and selling at the lows more often than not. And finally I have come to think that most asset allocation models are set up to feed money manager’s businesses not increasing investors return .It is more about the money manger full employment act than anything else.
For most investor’s assets the allocation process can be accomplished with the use of common sense ie… large cap, mid cap and small cap or Aggressive Growth, Value, Fixed income or Energy, Technology Consumer Products. It is most important to not to violate the viability, the suitability, your investment style or your own risk tolerances.
Another important issue is to make sure the funds are not all holding the same stocks .I know this sounds silly but the dirty little secret of the mutual fund business is that most of the larger mutual funds can only buy certain stocks that have a large enough capitalization that allows the fund to purchase a significant amount of shares to effect change in the total portfolio of the fund. With careful observation most investors will notice the same 10 stocks in every fund they own .Now that’s not much diversification is it?
Thank you again for all the referrals you have passed my way the last couple of months I really appreciate it.
Through www.jamesfoytlin.com I am entering in to an agreement with Elliott Wave International to provide additional content on Elliot Wave Specific strategy and commentary. Contact me if you are interested in using the Elliott Wave to more effectively manage your portfolio.
New Phone Numbers are toll free 1(866) 492-3959
1(201)966-7788
Cell 1(201)966-7788
James
www.jamesfoytlin.com
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
YIKES........................
Yikes…Painful though it can be, volatility can be rewarding. A down market could bring opportunity for long-term investors. ….And yes it hurts but remember in 1987 the market dropped over 22% in one day and the entire market melted down (stopped working) So we will see what tomorrow brings. The USA and global economies are still very strong so at the end of the day this maybe just another hiccup. Remember this market has had a tendency in the last couple of years to look real bad right before it moves up. My bet is that the market will bounce tomorrow or the next day making a climatic bottom (down early big then a turn up big) giving me a chance to reposition my portfolios on the bounce (take profits and run for my life) and then have a couple of more down days..if its down big tomorrow and it closes down big WE ARE SCREWED.
A down market could bring opportunity for long-term investors
Cool Stuff at BlingJam.com
February 27, 2007
Dear Investor,
Investments have historically returned the best results to patient, long-term investors-investors who have bought when most others were fearful, sold when most others were euphoric, and stood pat when the situation was very unclear. The best defense against short-term fear has been long-term confidence.
As a Financial Advisor, I’m here to help you make sure your investment portfolio stays properly balanced in light of your goals, objectives, and the current state of the market. Too much exposure to any one security, asset class, or industry sector can increase volatility. It may be appropriate for us to review your blend of stocks, bonds, and cash reserves because of the recent changes in the market.
Now is a good time for us to re-examine your holdings and make sure they suit your goals and risk tolerance. We’ll review your securities to see if you’re still comfortable. We should make adjustments when your life circumstances or the fundamentals of securities change-not just because the markets are uncomfortable today.
Painful though it can be, volatility can be rewarding. A down market could bring opportunity for long-term investors.
I want you to know that I’m here for you and reiterate my commitment to helping you reach your financial goals. If you have any questions or would like to set up a time to review your portfolio, please call me at my new number 1(866)492-3959.
Sincerely,
James J. Foytlin Jr.
Investment Representative
1(866)492-3959. (toll Free)
in the news
Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- China's stocks tumbled the most in 10 years on concern that a government crackdown on investments with borrowed money will end a rally that drove benchmarks to records.
.Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) -- The professionals most familiar with the so-called oil shortage know there's an estimated 3 trillion barrels under land and sea. That's why they're making their biggest bets in drilling rigs where the scarcity is no illusion.
Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) -- The smartest money in global warming stocks may be scurrying to the exit just when the enthusiasm for alternative-energy companies is at an all-time high.
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez ordered by decree on Monday the takeover of oil projects run by foreign oil companies in Venezuela's Orinoco River region.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- U.S. officers said Monday they had discovered a factory for assembling sophisticated roadside bombs from Iranian-made components _ the first such facility uncovered in a religiously mixed province north of Baghdad.
“When you get this far away from a recession invariably forces build up for the next recession, and indeed we are beginning to see that sign," Greenspan said via satellite link to a business conference in Hong Kong. "For example in the U.S., profit margins ... have begun to stabilize, which is an early sign we are in the later stages of a cycle." Former FED Chair Alan Greenspan
China Gets a Margin Call
Today’s over seas action may suggest that if you in emerging markets it may be time to run for your life….stay tuned
Monday, February 26, 2007
As for the Oscars....
As for the Oscars, if Al Gore is your highlight than you’re in big trouble. The market got Greenspaned today with the former FED chairs apparently still looking for his Oscar gave mention of the possibility of a recession and the fact that oil prices have moved high and look to go higher till April. I am not sure you can draw parallels to the early 1990’s recession as Dr. Greenspan is and the real-estate bust of that time. The consumer just has too many refi options, interest rates are still very low and the economy is booming. You also have to remember that the 1980’s saw the introduction of mass credit thru the spread of credit cards, leading to the huge retail boom of the 1980’s and the subsequent retail bust of the early 1990’s. Yes there could be pain but not as wide spread or as servere.I still don’t buy the inflation jitters either oil prices are going up due to the winter storms that are coinciding with the transition from fuel oil to gasoline and the refinery shut downs that precede this change this time of year
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
DOW THEORY GIVES MARKET BUY SIGNAL
First time in a long time there is confirmation, new highs on the DOW JONES INDUSTRIALS, TRANSPORTS and UTILITIES signals the market is poised to rally
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Best Time to Invest ; Maybe Now
Best time to invest: market timing could mean missed opportunities
The current outlook for equities doesn't seem to be as rosy as it was a year ago. The markets in Canada and the United States have been highly volatile in the last few months.
Many investors describe themselves as `long-term investors,' meaning that they will not be swayed by market volatility in the short-term. However, in reality, when the market starts going down, investors redeem their investments, often at a loss.
Unfortunately this is not a good idea. Why? Because most market gains are not even. They happen unexpectedly, and in just a few days. Here are a few studies that might show how the stock market performed over the year.
A study by Ibbotson shows that between the years 1926 and 1995, a $10,000 investment would have soared to $10,114,000. Yet out of those 70 years had you missed the best 35 months, your investment would be worth $101,600.
A study by the University of Michigan shows that between 1963 and 1993, $10,000 would have grown into $240,300. But if you had missed the best 90 days during this period, your investment would have been worth only $21,000.
In the 1980s, the Standard & Poor 500 Index rose 16.2% in 2,526 trading days. Nearly 80% of these gains took place in just 40 days!
Moral: You can't predict what the market will do. Stay invested at all times.
What about the danger of investing at the wrong time -- when stock prices are high? An analysis by Templeton shows that even if you invest on the worst possible day of the year, year after year, a long term investor will come out ahead. So don't time the market. Be invested at all times.
COPYRIGHT 1998 Money DigestCOPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
The current outlook for equities doesn't seem to be as rosy as it was a year ago. The markets in Canada and the United States have been highly volatile in the last few months.
Many investors describe themselves as `long-term investors,' meaning that they will not be swayed by market volatility in the short-term. However, in reality, when the market starts going down, investors redeem their investments, often at a loss.
Unfortunately this is not a good idea. Why? Because most market gains are not even. They happen unexpectedly, and in just a few days. Here are a few studies that might show how the stock market performed over the year.
A study by Ibbotson shows that between the years 1926 and 1995, a $10,000 investment would have soared to $10,114,000. Yet out of those 70 years had you missed the best 35 months, your investment would be worth $101,600.
A study by the University of Michigan shows that between 1963 and 1993, $10,000 would have grown into $240,300. But if you had missed the best 90 days during this period, your investment would have been worth only $21,000.
In the 1980s, the Standard & Poor 500 Index rose 16.2% in 2,526 trading days. Nearly 80% of these gains took place in just 40 days!
Moral: You can't predict what the market will do. Stay invested at all times.
What about the danger of investing at the wrong time -- when stock prices are high? An analysis by Templeton shows that even if you invest on the worst possible day of the year, year after year, a long term investor will come out ahead. So don't time the market. Be invested at all times.
COPYRIGHT 1998 Money DigestCOPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Mercury In Retrograde?
February 14 2007
Happy Valentines Day,
Ok so the choppiness continues, today its fears of significant defaults in the sub prime lending ,tomorrow who knows what disaster will predetermine the end of the world .It seems to me that the people that told us interest rates needed to raise to stem (wink wink) inflation, then told us after a summer on the beach that rates were headed down because the consumer was fading and a recession was looming and the Christmas shopping would be a bust, then told us the economy was booming so rates would have to raise to stem the increase in wages? Now rates must again fall because real-estate is about to disappear as an asset class? Yea right, I don’t believe any off it either and none of the indicators I look at suggest any of this is true. My issue is and has been that my indicator continues to suggest that the market should be doing better than it is or has been doing, so I continue my search for answers.
I have may have finally got it and seems to be all explained by the simply fact that Mercury is In Retrograde. So what does that mean you ask? On February 14, Mercury, the cosmic trickster, turns retrograde in Pisces, the sign of the Fishes, sending communications, travel, appointments, mail and the www into a general snarlup! A planet is described as retrograde when it appears to be moving backwards through the zodiac, its doesn’t actually move backwards but appears that way through an optical illusion. This awkward period begins a few days before the actual turning point (as Mercury slows) and lasts for three weeks or so, until March 12, when the Winged Messenger reaches his direct station. At this time he halts and begins his return to direct motion through the zodiac. So my bet is that the market will take its cue from Mercury and settle itself on a direction once the retrograde is done. The scary thing is that this is about the most sensible thing I have heard about the market so far this year.
The recent weakness has now been followed by renewed strength across the board .I know it is terribly old fashion but what I am liking is that the DOW Transportation index and the DOW Utilities Index are finally confirming the DOW JONES Industrials upside motion.
James Foytlin
1(866)492-3959
www.jamesfoytlin.com
Happy Valentines Day,
Ok so the choppiness continues, today its fears of significant defaults in the sub prime lending ,tomorrow who knows what disaster will predetermine the end of the world .It seems to me that the people that told us interest rates needed to raise to stem (wink wink) inflation, then told us after a summer on the beach that rates were headed down because the consumer was fading and a recession was looming and the Christmas shopping would be a bust, then told us the economy was booming so rates would have to raise to stem the increase in wages? Now rates must again fall because real-estate is about to disappear as an asset class? Yea right, I don’t believe any off it either and none of the indicators I look at suggest any of this is true. My issue is and has been that my indicator continues to suggest that the market should be doing better than it is or has been doing, so I continue my search for answers.
I have may have finally got it and seems to be all explained by the simply fact that Mercury is In Retrograde. So what does that mean you ask? On February 14, Mercury, the cosmic trickster, turns retrograde in Pisces, the sign of the Fishes, sending communications, travel, appointments, mail and the www into a general snarlup! A planet is described as retrograde when it appears to be moving backwards through the zodiac, its doesn’t actually move backwards but appears that way through an optical illusion. This awkward period begins a few days before the actual turning point (as Mercury slows) and lasts for three weeks or so, until March 12, when the Winged Messenger reaches his direct station. At this time he halts and begins his return to direct motion through the zodiac. So my bet is that the market will take its cue from Mercury and settle itself on a direction once the retrograde is done. The scary thing is that this is about the most sensible thing I have heard about the market so far this year.
The recent weakness has now been followed by renewed strength across the board .I know it is terribly old fashion but what I am liking is that the DOW Transportation index and the DOW Utilities Index are finally confirming the DOW JONES Industrials upside motion.
James Foytlin
1(866)492-3959
www.jamesfoytlin.com
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM
HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?” The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.
DC WEATHER REPORT:Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning...then a chance of snow in the afternoon. Ice accumulation of less than one quarter of an inch. Highs in the mid 30s. Northwest winds around 20 mph. Chance of precipitation 80 percent.Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph. (Drudge Report)
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?” The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.
DC WEATHER REPORT:Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning...then a chance of snow in the afternoon. Ice accumulation of less than one quarter of an inch. Highs in the mid 30s. Northwest winds around 20 mph. Chance of precipitation 80 percent.Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph. (Drudge Report)
in the news
The growth in video downloads could create an internet traffic jam that threatens the net's development, according to Google. Services such as YouTube, which is owned by the Californian giant, are proving tricky for internet providers to deal with and new developments could create even more problems, senior internet executives were told yesterday. (Guardian UK)
As picture-taking mobile telephones and digital movie cameras grow ubiquitous, Internet users worldwide are being recruited as citizen news reporters. In December Yahoo launched YouWitnessNews, a website that posts offerings from users after the submissions pass muster with professional editors. (AFP)
"I think that the whole citizen journalism phenomenon is a nascent trend," Scott Moore, head of Yahoo News, told AFP. "It is really technology that has created the opportunity."
Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming. "In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster, you are treated like a pariah," said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy. "It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way." (THE WASHINGTON TIMES)
LONDON, Feb 12 (Reuters Life!) - Size zero models in town for London Fashion Week now have one less excuse to skip a meal.A restaurant popular with celebrities and fashionistas in the British capital is offering free food to skinny models who have come under attack for promoting a stick-thin image which critics says encourages eating disorders in young women.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Czech president derogates UN global-warming panel
Czech president derogates UN global-warming panel
Posted on : 2007-02-09 Author : DPA News Category : Environment
Prague (dpa) - Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis, Czech media reported Friday.Klaus told the Hospodarske noviny daily that the panel did not include "neutral scientists, a balanced group of scientists.""These are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided opinion and assignment," he told interviewers.According to the Czech president, "each serious person and scientist" says that global warming is a myth.His comments came a week after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presented its much-anticipated report which contained a stark warning about global warming and blamed man-made emissions for the problem.The IPCC report, compiled by some 600 scientists from 40 countries, said it is "very likely" that man-made greenhouse gases have caused the rise in temperatures, reflecting a 90-per-cent certainty in the scientific community and an upgrade from a "likely," or two-thirds certainty given in the last IPCC report six years ago.The British government described the UN panel report, presented in Paris on February 2, a blow to the "climate change deniers."US President George W Bush turned away from climate change scepticism in this year's State of the Union speech proposing that the US cut petrol use to fight both global warming and foreign oil dependency, and his administration endorsed the UN panel report.According to Klaus, "other top-level politicians" do not express their global warming doubts because "a whip of political correctness strangles [their] voice".
Posted on : 2007-02-09 Author : DPA News Category : Environment
Prague (dpa) - Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis, Czech media reported Friday.Klaus told the Hospodarske noviny daily that the panel did not include "neutral scientists, a balanced group of scientists.""These are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided opinion and assignment," he told interviewers.According to the Czech president, "each serious person and scientist" says that global warming is a myth.His comments came a week after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presented its much-anticipated report which contained a stark warning about global warming and blamed man-made emissions for the problem.The IPCC report, compiled by some 600 scientists from 40 countries, said it is "very likely" that man-made greenhouse gases have caused the rise in temperatures, reflecting a 90-per-cent certainty in the scientific community and an upgrade from a "likely," or two-thirds certainty given in the last IPCC report six years ago.The British government described the UN panel report, presented in Paris on February 2, a blow to the "climate change deniers."US President George W Bush turned away from climate change scepticism in this year's State of the Union speech proposing that the US cut petrol use to fight both global warming and foreign oil dependency, and his administration endorsed the UN panel report.According to Klaus, "other top-level politicians" do not express their global warming doubts because "a whip of political correctness strangles [their] voice".
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
in the news
Apple CEO Jobs called on the major record labels to allow the sale of music downloads without anticopying software, saying the technology doesn't halt piracy (WSJ)
Feb. 7 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. worker productivity accelerated more than forecast last quarter and labor costs grew at a slower pace, suggesting wages may pose less of an inflation threat.
Feb. 7 (Bloomberg) -- New hedge funds around the world raised less money in 2006 for the second year in a row because of a rout in emerging markets and the collapse of Amaranth Advisors LLC.
DETROIT (AP) - An officer who arrested a man for cursing in a public meeting violated the man's right to free speech, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac has demanded that the United States sign both the Kyoto climate protocol and a future agreement that will take effect when the Kyoto accord runs out in 2012. (NYTIMES)
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - Self-conscious about what you wear while working out? A Dutch gym plans to introduce "Naked Sunday" for people who like to huff and puff in the buff. (Yahoo News)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday.
Feb. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Brian Tuttle owns so much land that he paid $3.6 million to get rid of 125 acres ready for development in the middle of Florida's Palm Beach County. ``In 2005, I was a brain surgeon, and in 2006, I was a moron,'' said Tuttle, who walked away from his deposit on the land rather than lose even more money buying it and building homes on it. ``The only good news is that I'm not alone.''
Feb. 7 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. worker productivity accelerated more than forecast last quarter and labor costs grew at a slower pace, suggesting wages may pose less of an inflation threat.
Feb. 7 (Bloomberg) -- New hedge funds around the world raised less money in 2006 for the second year in a row because of a rout in emerging markets and the collapse of Amaranth Advisors LLC.
DETROIT (AP) - An officer who arrested a man for cursing in a public meeting violated the man's right to free speech, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac has demanded that the United States sign both the Kyoto climate protocol and a future agreement that will take effect when the Kyoto accord runs out in 2012. (NYTIMES)
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - Self-conscious about what you wear while working out? A Dutch gym plans to introduce "Naked Sunday" for people who like to huff and puff in the buff. (Yahoo News)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday.
Feb. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Brian Tuttle owns so much land that he paid $3.6 million to get rid of 125 acres ready for development in the middle of Florida's Palm Beach County. ``In 2005, I was a brain surgeon, and in 2006, I was a moron,'' said Tuttle, who walked away from his deposit on the land rather than lose even more money buying it and building homes on it. ``The only good news is that I'm not alone.''
Monday, February 05, 2007
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)